Re: documentation about explicit locking

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: documentation about explicit locking
Date: 2018-07-05 14:02:05
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYLSf=OZ0oP7VseNde=0H_xT9d2W=1nD8im4LnX510hKw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:09 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> I wonder why we mention on the following page that CREATE COLLATION
> requires SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/explicit-locking.html
>
> I know that's the lock taken on the pg_collation catalog, but do we need
> to mention locks taken by a DDL command on the catalogs it affects? All
> other commands mentioned on the page require to specify the table name
> that the lock will be taken on.

Yes, that looks odd.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrey Borodin 2018-07-05 14:17:51 Re: Why B-Tree suffix truncation matters
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-07-05 14:00:13 Re: Global shared meta cache